I see. The wording in the article is misleading. It suggests the number reflects the number of women who "died while pregnant, in childbirth or within 42 days after pregnancy"--implying that "pregnancy-related" is any death that occurs under these circumstances.
However, having followed the links
three deep, I see you are correct. The number reflects "the death of a woman while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of a pregnancy –regardless of the outcome, duration or site of the pregnancy–from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes".
"Regardless of outcome" suggests this would also include deaths from complications related to birth control, abortifacients, abortions, as well as the pregnancy itself.
We also have to contend with "any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management", which is determined posthumously by doctors. Since pregnancy affects pretty much every system in the body, one wonders how loosely "related to or aggravated by" is construed. Technically every illness, injury, and medical condition known to man can be "aggravated by" the additional stress placed on the body by pregnancy, and my previous post establishes that well over 2,000 pregnant women age 20-40 are expected to die from incidental causes in any given year.
The operative question being: of the 658, how many wouldn't have died if not for birth control, abortifacients, or abortions, and how many would have died anyway from incidental causes deemed to be "aggravated by" pregnancy? We can only speculate, but my point is that the number can only go down.
If we use the full 658 by assuming that abortion is perfectly safe and the aggravation is required to cause death in every single case, we compare this to approximately 4.9 million pregnancies in 2018 (4 million live births plus 860K abortions). Given an estimated 860,000 abortions in the US in 2018, this implies that if every woman who had an abortion carried to term, we'd expect 658 · 860K/4.9M = 115 additional deaths, or approximately one life taken for every 7,450 lives saved. The actual number is surely closer to one life for 10,000 lives due to the aforementioned factors and the risks of pregnancy prior to abortion.
The only circumstances where surely saving 7,450 (or 10,000) lives isn't worth the probabilistic cost of one life is if we don't consider the 7,450 foetuses to be human beings, which of course all pro-lifers do. Hence I fail to see why any reasonable person--pro-choice or pro-life--would expect the statistic in the OP to sway the balance scales. Even for an individual who considered a foetus' life to be 1/100th the value of its mother's life, the mortality rate would have to be at least 74 times what it currently is for abortion to be justifiable on this basis.
